The party of individual freedom wants to ban porn.

[iceheart08]

This feels very freedomy and most Americans are totally for it.

Republican senator pushes law to effectively outlaw online porn nationwide

Legislation proposes changes based on age and First Amendment laws, including a new national definition of obscenity.

www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[dpic73]

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

Almost like the party of the Christian right isn’t the party of freedom. Who knew

 

[WapPride]

View embedded media

View embedded media

what are you doing step senator?

 

[dpic73]

what are you doing step senator?

Porn is a LIBERAL Trojan horse meant to turn our male youth into tranny hermaphrodites that vote Democratic and I won't have it.

 

[iceheart08]

@scotchtiger @Willence - your team

 

[scotchtiger]

@scotchtiger @Willence - your team

It’s not a team sport, first of all.

Gave the article a quick skim. It seems the intent is to protect minors from easy access to online pornography. The means of addressing the problem may not be correct, but I would hope we all agree that is a positive goal.

Said differently, 80% of children ages 12-17 have been exposed to online pornography (per the article). Do you think making this less common is a good or bad thing?

I don’t GAS what adults do. And I don’t think many others do either.

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

It’s not a team sport, first of all.

Gave the article a quick skim. It seems the intent is to protect minors from easy access to online pornography. The means of addressing the problem may not be correct, but I would hope we all agree that is a positive goal.

Said differently, 80% of children ages 12-17 have been exposed to online pornography (per the article). Do you think making this less common is a good or bad thing?

I don’t GAS what adults do. And I don’t think many others do either.

Casually misses the entire bit about redefining obscenity

 

[DW4_2016]

It’s not a team sport, first of all.

Gave the article a quick skim. It seems the intent is to protect minors from easy access to online pornography. The means of addressing the problem may not be correct, but I would hope we all agree that is a positive goal.

Said differently, 80% of children ages 12-17 have been exposed to online pornography (per the article). Do you think making this less common is a good or bad thing?

I don’t GAS what adults do. And I don’t think many others do either.

it's a trojan horse. how about take care of your kid and do your job as a parent and leave the government out of it.

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

it's a trojan horse. how about take care of your kid and do your job as a parent and leave the government out of it.

It’s not even a Trojan horse. They plainly want to broaden the definition of obscenity to legally restrict it

 

[CUT93]

it's a trojan horse. how about take care of your kid and do your job as a parent and leave the government out of it.

I am all for this! If dem voters did this it would greatly improve many of our fiscal and societal problems both short and long term.

 

[nytigerfan]

I am all for this! If dem voters did this it would greatly improve many of our fiscal and societal problems both short and long term.

What do you mean by “dem voters”? Why would you imply that democrats don’t take care of their children? Do you have data to support this?

Or are you talking about a specific demographic within dem voters? Please be specific.

 

[CUT93]

What do you mean by “dem voters”? Why would you imply that democrats don’t take care of their children? Do you have data to support this?

Or are you talking about a specific demographic within dem voters? Please be specific.

I would think it is pretty self explanatory that "dem voters" means people who vote democrats as opposed to people who vote for someone other than a democrat. Even with your proven lack of ability to understand the language, I am surprised you have trouble with this.

As for statistics, there are very few recent stats that break out those on govt assistance by party- likely bc most "journalist" don't want data out there they can not manipulate or or misconstrue. However, I will find some data on govt assistance programs later and post it for you.

 

[iceheart08]

What do you mean by “dem voters”? Why would you imply that democrats don’t take care of their children? Do you have data to support this?

Or are you talking about a specific demographic within dem voters? Please be specific.

Oh, you are of course right, he's definitely talking about black folks.

 

[nytigerfan]

Oh, you are of course right, he's definitely talking about black folks.

100%. But he is too much of a pussy to say it, and will claim “I was talking about all dems. You are playing the race card!”

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

It’s not a team sport, first of all.

Gave the article a quick skim. It seems the intent is to protect minors from easy access to online pornography. The means of addressing the problem may not be correct, but I would hope we all agree that is a positive goal.

Said differently, 80% of children ages 12-17 have been exposed to online pornography (per the article). Do you think making this less common is a good or bad thing?

I don’t GAS what adults do. And I don’t think many others do either.

I again as a conservative white American male want to allow us consenting adults the leeway to do what we do as long as it does not harm someone and is consenting

I did not read the article but my position is that minors need to be shielded as reasonably as possible however like me in high school we get them mags and look

 

[scotchtiger]

Casually misses the entire bit about redefining obscenity

Didn't miss it. I specifically said the means of addressing the issue isn't the correct path.

I can't really go into it, and it's not my family, but there are some major issues that can come from young boys being exposed to porn too early. Even for responsible families.

Instead of being hyper partisan, perhaps the better approach is to say, "Hey, we agree that we should better protect young kids from prolific online porn. Let's find a way to do it without impacting consenting adults."

But nope, it's a team sport and a zero sum game.

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

Didn't miss it. I specifically said the means of addressing the issue isn't the correct path.

I can't really go into it, and it's not my family, but there are some major issues that can come from young boys being exposed to porn too early. Even for responsible families.

Instead of being hyper partisan, perhaps the better approach is to say, "Hey, we agree that we should better protect young kids from prolific online porn. Let's find a way to do it without impacting consenting adults."

But nope, it's a team sport and a zero sum game.

The rules of the game changed when the GOP got in bed with the devil.

 

[scotchtiger]

The rules of the game changed when the GOP got in bed with the devil.

Go on...

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

Go on...

Remarkably difficult to talk in good faith with members of the GQP. When you’ve got GOP senators tip toeing around the issue of a former President inciting an insurrection, I wouldn’t waste my breath dealing with them

 

[scotchtiger]

Remarkably difficult to talk in good faith with members of the GQP. When you’ve got GOP senators tip toeing around the issue of a former President inciting an insurrection, I wouldn’t waste my breath dealing with them

So I talk to my wife about this a lot. Separating emotion and feelings from logic and reason. If you’ve paid attention at all, you know I’m not part of the G’Q’P. It seems you’re having the same affliction ITT as some overly emotional people do with basic discussions. Holler when you’ve matured a bit.

 

[iceheart08]

Didn't miss it. I specifically said the means of addressing the issue isn't the correct path.

I can't really go into it, and it's not my family, but there are some major issues that can come from young boys being exposed to porn too early. Even for responsible families.

Instead of being hyper partisan, perhaps the better approach is to say, "Hey, we agree that we should better protect young kids from prolific online porn. Let's find a way to do it without impacting consenting adults."

But nope, it's a team sport and a zero sum game.

The party that you vote for, every time without fail, isn't using a scalpal and their goal isn't to protect kids. If it were, they aren't stupid, they can write the bill to do what they want. And what they want, is to ban porn. That's the bill they wrote.

Be self righteous about it all you want. You vote for these people. And will continue to do so. That helps the folks you so vociferously claim to be against.

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

So I talk to my wife about this a lot. Separating emotion and feelings from logic and reason. If you’ve paid attention at all, you know I’m not part of the G’Q’P. It seems you’re having the same affliction ITT as some overly emotional people do with basic discussions. Holler when you’ve matured a bit.

Did I accuse you of being part of the GQP? No, no I did not

 

[CUT93]

The party that you vote for, every time without fail, isn't using a scalpal and their goal isn't to protect kids. If it were, they aren't stupid, they can write the bill to do what they want. And what they want, is to ban porn. That's the bill they wrote.

Be self righteous about it all you want. You vote for these people. And will continue to do so. That helps the folks you so vociferously claim to be against.

Just like the people you vote for don't give two craps about religious freedom. They don't want people who disagree with the lgbt... lifestyle from a religious point of view to just be accepting of people who choose that lifestyle, they want everyone to have to affirm/support/agree with it. Otherwise, they would try to write laws and prosecute people who actually try to harm others based on their views rather than choosing not to support/agree with them.

Your party does not use a scalpel. They use a flame thrower on anyone who does not fervently agree with them. They do not want equal treatment, personal choice, or freedom. They want forced support and agreement with what they believe. It works both ways.

 

[Cocks are Number 1]

The party that you vote for, every time without fail, isn't using a scalpal and their goal isn't to protect kids. If it were, they aren't stupid, they can write the bill to do what they want. And what they want, is to ban porn. That's the bill they wrote.

Be self righteous about it all you want. You vote for these people. And will continue to do so. That helps the folks you so vociferously claim to be against.

In simple terms… Dems voted for Biden.

**Sigh**

 

[iceheart08]

In simple terms… Dems voted for Biden.

**Sigh**

? neither of us are talking about biden or Dems?

 

[dpic73]

Just like the people you vote for don't give two craps about religious freedom. They don't want people who disagree with the lgbt... lifestyle from a religious point of view to just be accepting of people who choose that lifestyle, they want everyone to have to affirm/support/agree with it. Otherwise, they would try to write laws and prosecute people who actually try to harm others based on their views rather than choosing not to support/agree with them.

Your party does not use a scalpel. They use a flame thrower on anyone who does not fervently agree with them. They do not want equal treatment, personal choice, or freedom. They want forced support and agreement with what they believe. It works both ways.

OMFG, we're back in 1990 again? How comforting it must be to know that you don't have to worry about someone disagreeing with who you love or deciding that your reality is against their religion. I guess we're just supposed to blindly support your CHOICE? How arrogant of you.

 

[scotchtiger]

The party that you vote for, every time without fail, isn't using a scalpal and their goal isn't to protect kids. If it were, they aren't stupid, they can write the bill to do what they want. And what they want, is to ban porn. That's the bill they wrote.

Be self righteous about it all you want. You vote for these people. And will continue to do so. That helps the folks you so vociferously claim to be against.

To be clear, I’m against all of them. I think both parties suck. I happen to think that the one who wants a bigger government, more entitlements, higher taxes, etc sucks more. So I vote for the other guys.

 

[CUT93]

Oh, you are of course right, he's definitely talking about black folks.

100%. But he is too much of a pussy to say it, and will claim “I was talking about all dems. You are playing the race card!”

First I will address both of your racist comments this way. When the govt takes my $$$ from me and gives it to someone else, I really do not care what race is of the person they give it to. Should it make me feel better that they are giving my money to a white person rather than a black/hispanic/asian/etc.? How miserable/cynical of a life do you have to lead when you immediately jump to race conclusions no matter the subject? This is a huge problem today. You can not simply have discussions based on fact and data without people like you immediately ignoring facts and data and decrying (racist/sexist/bigot/blah blah blah).
The fact that NY is either too stupid or dishonest to know what I said was true even before given any data to prove it is not that surprising. However, I know iceheart has access to troves of data as a political consultant and should be well aware of these facts. I really am shocked you would balk at the suggestion so quickly.

On to the matter at hand. As I indicated earlier, there is little current data that specifically separates govt assistance program recipients specifically by political affiliation. I'll let you draw your own conclusions of why that is, lol. I did however, find some older articles with this data and a couple of charts and an article about such is included below.

The first chart deals with food stamps, which is likely a good indicator for other assistance programs (sans social security/medicare which are primarily driven by age). As you can clearly see, democrats were more than twice as likely to receive this govt assistance as republicans.

The second chart shows that democrats were much more likely to have received some form of govt assistance over their lifetime(again sans SS/Medicare).

The article, while only based on polling data. further supports the facts included in the data in the charts. It was based on polling from two separate groups including npr, which no one would consider as having a "right wing" bias.

As for current data, you could not get exact percentages that are included in the older data. However, you could certainly extrapolate data based on age, race, sex, etc and voting data about those groups that would confirm democrat voters still are more likely than republicans to use govt assistance programs not named social security/medicare.

https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2013/07/FT_13.07.12_FoodStamps_310px.png

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2012/12/SDT-2012-12-18-beneficiaries-06.png

Are Welfare Recipients Mostly Republican? - Wall Street Pit

Paul Krugman is in puzzlement, having observed that Red States get more welfare funding, while Republican voters oppose the welfare state. He portrays Republicans as “Moochers” who are either hypocritical or too stupid to know their own best interest. But as we know, states do not vote...

wallstreetpit.com

To use one of newyork's favorite quips: THESE ARE THE FACTS AND THEY ARE UNDENIABLE!😁

 

[CUT93]

OMFG, we're back in 1990 again? How comforting it must be to know that you don't have to worry about someone disagreeing with who you love or deciding that your reality is against their religion. I guess we're just supposed to blindly support your CHOICE? How arrogant of you.

No, you are not supposed to blindly support MY CHOICE. That is the whole point you moron. How low does your IQ have to be not to understand this? You do not have to support ANY choice I make.

Let me ask you a question. Would it be against your religious beliefs to have ten wives? I'm guessing it would be against most people's religious beliefs(if they have any) as the vast majority of people think (religious) marriage is/should be between two people. Are you a shitty person bc you believe that? Is it wrong of you not to support people who want ten wives? No, of course not. That doesn't mean you hate people who have multiple wives, it just means that you do not agree with that choice. I know multiple people who are homosexual or have children/family members who are. I know people who are atheist/agnostic as well. I am friends with some of them even though I do not agree with their views on everything.

I don't care how you live your life as long as it does not infringe on the right to live my life according to my beliefs.

 

[iceheart08]

No, you are not supposed to blindly support MY CHOICE. That is the whole point you moron. How low does your IQ have to be not to understand this? You do not have to support ANY choice I make.

Let me ask you a question. Would it be against your religious beliefs to have ten wives? I'm guessing it would be against most people's religious beliefs(if they have any) as the vast majority of people think (religious) marriage is/should be between two people. Are you a shitty person bc you believe that? Is it wrong of you not to support people who want ten wives? No, of course not. That doesn't mean you hate people who have multiple wives, it just means that you do not agree with that choice. I know multiple people who are homosexual or have children/family members who are. I know people who are atheist/agnostic as well. I am friends with some of them even though I do not agree with their views on everything.

I don't care how you live your life as long as it does not infringe on the right to live my life according to my beliefs.

Ok. So how you do you feel about the above mentioned bill, designed to ban porn.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Ok....let me summarize this discussion down to its core. Dems want to normalize transsex activities and teach it to young children in the schools. Dems basically want to legalize and normalize every kind of deviant behavior possible and its being led directly from the WH by Pedo Joe as he is affectionately referred to by his family.

Republicans want to restrict porn availability to minors on the web even though they have not put forward a fullproof plan.

No matter how you put it I am with the republicans related to this discussion.

 

[CUT93]

Ok. So how you do you feel about the above mentioned bill, designed to ban porn.

I have not read the bill, so I honestly do not know what it is. However, if is an effective ban on porn I would be against it, no matter what the intended benefit is. I do not think the govt should be in the business of mandating morality in the vast majority of cases. If there was a way to keep access strictly from minors by snapping your fingers, I would be for it. Not at he cost of freedom(of speech) no matter how distasteful, however. I am not a ends justifies the means guy for the most part. There are costs/downsides to freedom/liberty, that we just have to accept. This is one of them, imo. I think there is little question that porn has an overall negative impact on society, if that were to be measured somehow. No question it leads to child molestation, rape, and likely some homicides. So, it is not a easy thing to say you don't want to stop something that would reduce instances of those things.

I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. However, this is a religious belief, not a political one. Imo, if you want to marry two men, three women, one of your sisters, two of you uncles, and the family dog, the govt has no business telling you you can not. They also do not have any business telling me I have to think it ok or support it.

 

[DW4_2016]

I have not read the bill, so I honestly do not know what it is. However, if is an effective ban on porn I would be against it, no matter what the intended benefit is. I do not think the govt should be in the business of mandating morality in the vast majority of cases. If there was a way to keep access strictly from minors by snapping your fingers, I would be for it. Not at he cost of freedom(of speech) no matter how distasteful, however. I am not a ends justifies the means guy for the most part. There are costs/downsides to freedom/liberty, that we just have to accept. This is one of them, imo. I think there is little question that porn has an overall negative impact on society, if that were to be measured somehow. No question it leads to child molestation, rape, and likely some homicides. So, it is not a easy thing to say you don't want to stop something that would reduce instances of those things.

I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. However, this is a religious belief, not a political one. Imo, if you want to marry two men, three women, one of your sisters, two of you uncles, and the family dog, the govt has no business telling you you can not. They also do not have any business telling me I have to think it ok or support it.

I’m guessing we’re gonna have to pass the bill to figure out what’s in it?

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

The party that you vote for, every time without fail, isn't using a scalpal and their goal isn't to protect kids. If it were, they aren't stupid, they can write the bill to do what they want. And what they want, is to ban porn. That's the bill they wrote.

Be self righteous about it all you want. You vote for these people. And will continue to do so. That helps the folks you so vociferously claim to be against.

Let me mention the party and President you now support enabled the cartels to sell children across the border, bring in drugs to kill Americans, allows criminals and terrorists to enter to do future harm, supports doxxing and threats to SCOTUS judges , selling immigrants for body parts, enabled rioters across American to the tune of about 600 in 2020, supports defunding police which has raised violence and homicides across American more pronounced in the minority communities particularly black with Latino communities suffering too ,

So I get the Republicans are terrorists to humanity

I get that Donald Trump is truly a danger to human civilization

I get it that all humanity that does not agree with you is dangerous to Democracy and your desired way of life

I see your point that Democrats and liberals are the ONLY solution to a safe sane prosperous America

You have me convinced

Please keep up the dialogue as all voices need to be heard

 

[WapPride]

Just like the people you vote for don't give two craps about religious freedom. They don't want people who disagree with the lgbt... lifestyle from a religious point of view to just be accepting of people who choose that lifestyle, they want everyone to have to affirm/support/agree with it. Otherwise, they would try to write laws and prosecute people who actually try to harm others based on their views rather than choosing not to support/agree with them.

Your party does not use a scalpel. They use a flame thrower on anyone who does not fervently agree with them. They do not want equal treatment, personal choice, or freedom. They want forced support and agreement with what they believe. It works both ways.

is your premise here that homosexuality is a choice?

 

[nytigerfan]

OMFG, we're back in 1990 again? How comforting it must be to know that you don't have to worry about someone disagreeing with who you love or deciding that your reality is against their religion. I guess we're just supposed to blindly support your CHOICE? How arrogant of you.

This reminds me of Sarah Palin in a VP debate talking about how much she "tolerates the gays."

 

[dpic73]

This reminds me of Sarah Palin in a VP debate talking about how much she "tolerates the gays."

Next thing you know they'll want to marry a goat and we'll be forced to accept it.